Tag Archives: florida supreme court

excess

The State of Workers’ Comp in 2016

Over the last two years, employers and groups that self-insure their workers’ compensation exposures have enjoyed reasonably favorable terms on their excess insurance policies. Both premiums and self-insured retentions (SIRs) have remained relatively stable since 2014. This trend is likely to continue through 2016, but the long-term outlook for this line of coverage is less promising. Changing loss trends, stagnant interest rates, deteriorating reinsurance results and challenging regulatory issues are likely to have a negative impact on excess workers’ compensation insurance in the near future.

Predictions for 2016

Little direct information is available on the excess workers’ compensation marketplace even though written premiums well exceed $1 billion nationwide. Accurately forecasting changes in the marketplace is largely a function of the prevalent conditions of the workers’ compensation, reinsurance and financial marketplaces. But, based on available information, premium rates, retentions and policy limits should remain relatively flat on excess workers’ compensation policies for the balance of the 2016 calendar year. This projected stability is because of four main factors: positive results in the workers’ compensation industry over the last two years, availability of favorable terms in the reinsurance marketplace, an increase in the interest rate by the Federal Reserve at the end of 2015 and continued investment in value-added cost-containment services by excess carriers.

For calendar year 2014, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) reported a 98% combined ratio for the workers’ compensation industry nationwide. In 2015, the combined ratio is projected to have improved slightly to 96%. This equates to a 2% underwriting profit for 2014 and a projected 4% underwriting profit for 2015. This is the first time since 2006 that the industry has posted positive results. The results were further bolstered by a downward trend in lost-time claims across the country and improved investment returns.

Reinsurance costs and availability play a significant role in the overall cost of excess workers’ compensation coverage. On an individual policy, reinsurance can make up 25% or more of the total cost. Excess workers’ compensation carriers, like most insurance carriers, purchase reinsurance coverages to spread risk and minimize volatility generated by catastrophic claims and adverse loss development. Reinsurers have benefited from underwriting gains and improved investment returns over the last three years. These results have helped to stabilize their costs and terms, which have directly benefited the excess workers’ compensation carriers and, ultimately, the policyholders that purchase excess coverage.

According to NCCI, the workers’ compensation industry has only posted underwriting profits in four of the last 25 years. This includes the two most recent calendar years. To generate an ultimate net profit and for the industry to remain viable on a long-term basis, workers’ compensation carriers rely heavily on investment income to offset the losses in most policy years. For the first time since 2006, the Federal Reserve increased target fund rates at the end of 2015. Although the increase was marginal, it has a measurable impact on the long-term investment portfolios held by workers’ compensation and excess workers’ compensation carriers. Workers’ compensation has a very long lag between the time a claim occurs and the date it is ultimately closed. This lag time is known as a “tail.” The tail on an excess workers’ compensation policy year can be 15, 20 and even as much as 30 years. An additional 0.25% investment return on funds held in reserve over a 20-plus-year period can translate into significant additional revenue for a carrier.

Excess workers’ compensation carriers have moved away from the traditional model of providing only commodity-based insurance coverage over the last 10 years. Most have instead developed various value-added cost-containment services that are provided within the cost of the excess policies they issue. Initially, these services were used to differentiate individual carriers from their competitors but have since evolved to have a meaningful impact on the cost of claims for both the policyholder and the carrier. These services include safety and loss control consultation to prevent claims from occurring, predictive analytics to help identify problematic claims for early intervention and benchmarking tools that help employers target specific areas for improvement. These value-added services not only reduce the frequency and severity of the claims experience for the policyholder, but excess carriers, as well.

Long Term Challenges

The results over the last two years have been relatively favorable for the workers’ compensation industry, but there are a number of long-term challenges and issues. These factors will likely lead to increasing premiums or increases in the self-insured retentions (SIRs) available under excess workers’ compensation policies.

Loss Trends: Workers’ compensation claims frequency, especially lost-time frequency, has steadily declined on a national level over the last 10 years, but the average cost of lost-time claims is increasing. These two diverging trends could ultimately result in a general increase in lost-time (indemnity) costs. Further, advances in medical technology, treatments and medications (especially opioids) are pushing the medical cost component of workers’ compensation claims higher, and, on average, medical costs make up 60% to 70% of most workers’ compensation claims.

Interest Rates: While the Federal Reserve did increase interest rates by 0.25 percentage point in late December, many financial analysts say that further increases are unlikely in the foreseeable future. Ten- year T-bill rates have been steadily declining over the last 25 years, and the current 10-year Treasury rate remains at a historically low level. A lack of meaningful returns on long-term investments will necessitate future premium increases, likely coupled with increases in policy retentions to offset increasing losses in future years.

Reinsurance: According to a recent study published by Ernst & Young, the property/casualty reinsurance marketplace has enjoyed three consecutive years of positive underwriting results, but each successive year since 2013 has produced a smaller underwriting profit than the last. In 2013, reinsurers generated a 3% underwriting profit followed by a 2% profit in 2014 and finally an underwriting profit of less than 1% in 2015. Like most insurance carriers, reinsurers utilize investment income to offset underwriting losses. As the long-term outlook for investments languishes, reinsurance carriers are likely to move their premiums and retentions upward to generate additional revenue, thus increasing the cost of underlying policies, including excess insurance.

Regulatory Matters: Workers’ compensation rules and regulations are fairly well-established in most states, but a number of recent developments at the federal and state levels may hurt workers’ compensation programs nationwide. The federal government continues to seek cost-shifting options under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to state workers’ compensation programs. Later this year, state Medicaid programs will be permitted to recover entire liability settlements from state workers’ compensation plans – as opposed to just the amount related to the medical portion of the settlement. At the state level, there are an increasing number of challenges to the “exclusive remedy” provision of most workers’ compensation systems. Florida’s Supreme Court is currently deliberating such a challenge. Should the court rule in favor of the plaintiffs, Florida employers could be exposed to increased litigation from injured workers. A ruling against exclusive remedy could possibly set precedent for plaintiff attorneys to bring similar litigation in other states. Lastly, allowing injured workers to seek remedies outside of the workers’ compensation system would strip carriers and employers of many cost-containment options.

Florida Work Comp Comes Full Circle

The recent Florida 11th Judicial Circuit Court decision in Florida Workers Advocates v. State of Florida, No. 11-13661-CA25 (2014) written by Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto, represents, in essence, a constitutional challenge to workers’ compensation that has come full circle. While during the early part of the 20th century there were a host of challenges to state workers’ compensation systems by employers, it has taken almost a century for workers to raise their own constitutional claims.

The interest in this case that has been triggered across the country should be tempered by the fact that this is a trial court level opinion and that the Florida Supreme Court already has a constitutional challenge to the workers’ compensation system on its docket. This latest case, undoubtedly, will be added to the appellate mix. (See: Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, Case No. 1D12-3563)

As part of the reform process, stakeholders in every state workers’ compensation system have to come to grips with issues that require revisiting the original bargain. The inciting incident is inevitably the high cost to employers and the perceived abuses in the system by lawyers, medical providers and others. Seldom is the issue whether injured workers are being paid too much per se in terms of impairment or temporary or permanent indemnity benefits.

The challenge to the courts, whether in Florida or anywhere else, is to not sit in judgment over what is fundamentally a legislative decision. As stated by the California Court of Appeal more than a decade ago, “…policy concerns, expressed in a parade of horribles—delay or denial of benefits, delay in employees’ return to work, litigation explosion, increased claims costs, increased strain on government benefit programs, defense solicitation of ‘bought’ medical opinions—are better addressed to the legislature.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1249, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 865. When the legislature enacts changes to the workers’ compensation system, it is not up to the courts to overturn such actions based on whether they comport with the courts’ version of what a good workers’ compensation system ought to be. As the California Court of Appeals also stated:

“The judiciary, in reviewing statutes enacted by the legislature, may not undertake to evaluate the wisdom of the policies embodied in such legislation; absent a constitutional prohibition, the choice among competing policy considerations in enacting laws is a legislative function.” Bautista v. State of California (2011)201 Cal.App.4th 716, 733.

Even though Judge Cueto cited New York Central R. Co. v. White 243 U.S. 188 (1917), a decision arising from when New York’s system came under immediate scrutiny almost a century ago, to support his finding that exclusive remedy was now unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court in that case also found:

“If the employee is no longer able to recover as much as before in case of being injured through the employer’s negligence, he is entitled to moderate compensation in all cases of injury, and has a certain and speedy remedy without the difficulty and expense of establishing negligence or proving the amount of the damages. Instead of assuming the entire consequences of all ordinary risks of the occupation, he assumes the consequences, in excess of the scheduled compensation, of risks ordinary and extraordinary. On the other hand, if the employer is left without defense respecting the question of fault, he at the same time is assured that the recovery is limited, and that it goes directly to the relief of the designated beneficiary.”  White 243 U.S. at 201 (1917)

The Court in White set out the boundaries for any constitutional analysis of a state workers’ compensation system when it said, in dicta, “This, of course, is not to say that any scale of compensation, however insignificant on the one hand or onerous on the other, would be supportable.”

That language underscores the wide range of actions a state legislature may take when creating and changing benefits in a workers’ compensation system and how best they are to be delivered. Such discretion – and deference – is at the heart of the concept of separation of powers.

Judge Cueto held that the Florida legislature has crossed this constitutional Rubicon. It will be up to the Florida Supreme Court, ultimately, to decide on which side of the bank its workers’ compensation is now docked.

The Lesson Behind the Florida Ruling on ‘Exclusive Remedy’

In an episode of the hit television show “The Big Bang Theory,” leading character Dr. Sheldon Cooper, in admonishing his friends over his correct assumptions as to when they should depart for a movie and thus avoid a long line, decided not to say “I told you so.” Instead, he opted for the much more refined, “I warned you thusly.” I plan to emulate Dr. Cooper and make liberal use of that phrase today.

While pundits and legal experts have been carefully watching major RICO cases and other test cases around the country that threaten the sanctity of “exclusive remedy” within workers’ compensation, out of the legal swamps of Florida an unexpected ruling from a previously undiscussed case has surged forth to consume the topic in its entirety. A Miami judge on Wednesday declared Florida workers’ compensation, as an exclusive remedy, unconstitutional based on the continued erosion of benefits from when the system was established. While the final act on this play has yet to take the stage, it is a potential wake up call for the industry. After all, most of us didn’t see this coming. Most of us, that is.

I, however, warned you thusly.

More than two years ago I wrote about a case in Tennessee that denied an electrical lineman workers’ comp benefits because he had “willfully” defied established safety rules and was severely shocked as a result. He had removed protective safety gloves to attach a small nut that was very difficult to handle when the gloves were in use. The court essentially assigned blame to him in the case and found he was not entitled to benefits for his injuries, because he had violated established safety protocols that otherwise would have prevented the accident. While insurance professionals and employers around the country were taking a victory lap over this decision, I assumed a position that put me at direct odds with many. I warned that the continued erosion of the no-fault doctrine of comp was a two-edged sword and that eventually employers would get cut by the same instrument they were championing at the time.

Specifically, I wrote:

“While this decision might be a short-term victory for employers and perhaps a strong reinforcement of safety protocol, I am concerned that it fundamentally undermines the notion of workers’ comp at its core, and ultimately threatens the benefits offered those same employers; namely the concept of exclusive remedy. Employers cannot have their cake and eat it, too.

The employee made a mistake. That is quite often how these accidents happen. While there are exceptions for horseplay, drug use and extreme negligence in some jurisdictions, largely comp pays these claims because, quite frankly, that was the deal. This company has other avenues with which to deal with this if it so chooses. It can document, demote, even terminate the employee for failing to follow required procedures. But by refusing to pay his claim, and successfully getting the courts to agree, the door is open for any accident, any “willful” mistake to be used in the denial of all claims. That might be logical on the surface, but it is entirely contradictory to the no-fault precept that workers’ comp is based on. It threatens the future of comp as it was envisioned and followed. Once the “blame game” begins, employers may not have to wait long to find that it is a two-edged sword.”

I warned you thusly. I so warned you thusly.

While the case in Florida is not related to our Tennessee lineman, the corrosive principles that led to the decision share a lineage; a line that leads to reduced benefits and coverage in exchange for cost reductions. They are both cases dealing with erosion of the “Great Compromise” that created workers’ comp to begin with.

The case in Florida hinges largely on 2003 reforms that eliminated benefits for permanent partial disability. The court found that eliminating those benefits violated injured workers’ rights and determined that workers are therefore free to pursue tort claims for work-related injuries. Two other challenges to the Florida comp statutes and 2003 reforms are already scheduled for review by the Florida Supreme Court, so the entire cost-reducing effort is currently at peril. Employers that celebrated the specific reduction in benefits and cost are now likely panicked at the prospect of a new and looming liability.

You cannot say I did not warn you thusly.

At a bloggers panel at the National Workers’ Compensation Conference in Las Vegas last year, we touched on this topic and were discussing cases that threatened exclusive remedy. One employer in the audience stated out loud, in response to the concept of denying benefits based on culpability, “but it is their fault.” I responded by reminding them of the “no-fault” concept of workers’ comp and the Great Compromise that brought it about in the first place. I then asked the audience which of them would like to be held personally liable, evenly criminally liable, when their company is found “at fault” for a worker’s injuries. Would employers willingly accept tort claims when it is shown they were negligent or at fault for an accident?

Not a single person in the crowd of 300 responded in the affirmative. Boy, were you warned thusly.

We are rapidly approaching a point where societal changes and entitlement expectations will require major overhauls in the thought processes within our industry. We need an attitude shift within workers’ comp. We can no longer manage claim cost and severity rating by legislative fiat. We, both the industry and the employers it serves, need to embrace a new philosophy for dealing with these challenging issues. A return to more personal claims management within a system geared for workers’ recovery is the only path that will accommodate the needs of all parties, while preserving the intent and scope of the original Great Compromise.

In the interim, we will continue to struggle with balance and reforms. I do not necessarily agree with the Florida court decision, but I understand what led us to this point. The legislature, depending on appeal activity, will no doubt address the issue if needed and restore certain benefits to preserve the exclusive remedy portion of its law, but I fear this will leave a lesson not yet learned. We must understand our history, or we will be bound to repeat it at some point in the not-too-distant future.

You cannot say you were not warned thusly.